'MEMORANDUM
CALIFORNIA
DATE:
November 21, 2011
TO:
Faculty
Department of Accountancy
MS PB 7
FROM:
William A. Covin
Provost and Vice P sident for Academic Affairs
STATE
UNIVERSITY,
FRESNO
SUBJECT: Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations
and Student Course Evaluations (RE: APM 322)
I have received and reviewed your departmental documents, and they are
approved for implementation during the remainder of AY11-12.
I fully understand that the statistical standard chosen for student ratings is
provisional, and may require further adjustment once we have obtained a
sufficient amount of comparison data. However, the mean you have selected
seems a reasonable initial benchmark.
I also want to reiterate my commitment to our Academic Senate's stated
beliefs that student feedback is best viewed from a multi-year perspective, and
considered within the larger context of all evidence presented in support of a
colleague's teaching effectiveness.
WAC:kyp
cc: Robert Harper, Dean, Craig School of Business
Ted Wendt, AVP for Academic Personnel
Office of the Provost
and Vice President
for Academic Affairs
Harold H. /Ink
Administrative Center
Henry Madden Library
5200 N. Barton Ave. MIS ML54
Fresno, CA 93740-8014
559.278.2636
Fax 559.278.7987
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTANCY
POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
APM 322 is the official policy on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness. This Departmental policy is
designed to further define requirements at the Departmental level as specified in APM 322.
STUDENT RATINGS OF INSTRUCTION
Each faculty member shall have a minimum of two sections rated by students annually.
While the IDEA Short Form will be the standard paper instrument for the campus, faculty may elect to
use either the Diagnostic Form or Online version.
Summary Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness (form attached): Student ratings of instruction shall be
assessed to identify patterns and trends of teaching performance and effectiveness. It is expected that the
faculty member shall meet or exceed the department standard on the "A. Progress on Relevant
Objectives" and "B. Excellent Teacher — Overall Ratings" (form attached) of 3.75 out of 5.0 using
adjusted or unadjusted scores, whichever are higher, on a regular basis; however, it is more important to
evaluate on the basis of multi-year trends rather than focusing on a single course or narrow time frame.
PEER EVALUATIONS
1. Frequency
a. For part-time temporary faculty, the first time a course is taught by the instructor and,
thereafter, at least one section every other year of employment regardless of a break in service.
b. For full-time temporary faculty, two sections each semester for the first year and two
sections each academic year thereafter.
c. For probationary faculty, two sections (to include as many different courses as possible)
every semester.
d. For tenured faculty, one section each academic year on a rotating basis such that during a five
year period the maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
2. Faculty will use the University-Wide Peer Evaluation Form (form attached) to evaluate Course
Content, Instructional Design, Instructional Delivery and Assessment methods.
OVERALL
The Department will follow the guidelines in APM 325, APM 327 and APM 328 when electing
committees selected to prepare the overall evaluation of teaching.
APPROVAL PROCESS
Departmental policies will be submitted to the appropriate School/College Dean and to the Provost for
review and approval.
Last Updated: 10/03/2011
APM 322b
ijoeoto
115
California State University, Fresno
UNIVERSITY-WIDE PEER EVALUATION FORM
Professor Evaluated:
Rank:
Term/Year:
Course:
Date of Classroom Visitation:
Signature:
Name of Evaluator
Ratings Scale: 5 = superior I 4= above average I 3 = average I 2 = below average I 1 = weak
Ratin 1-5
a
A. Course Content. The assessment of course content shall include a review of the
currency of the content of a course, the appropriateness of the level of the content of a
course, and the appropriateness of the sequencing of the content to best achieve the
learning objectives for the course.
COMMENTS:
5 Superior
Instructional De.sion. The assessment of the instructional design of the course shall
include a review of learning objectives, syllabi, instructional support materials,
organization of lectures, and the use of technology appropriate to the dass.
B.
COMMENTS:
•
5 Superior
C. Instructional Delivery. The assessment of delivery shall include a review of oral
presentation skills, written communication skills, skills using various forms of informational
technology, and the ability to create an overall environment conducive to student learning.
COMMENTS:
5 Superior
D. Assessment Methods. The evaluation of assessment methods shall consist of a
review of the tools, procedures, and strategies used for measuring student learning, and
providing timely and meaningful feedback to students.
COMMENTS:
5 Superior 1
Additional comments may be included on the reverse side of this form.
APM 322c
MEMORANDUM
CALIFORNIA
DATE:
November 21, 2011
TO:
Faculty
Department of Economics
M/S PB 20
FROM:
William A. Covino
Provost and Vice sident for Academic Affairs
STATE
UNIVERSITY,
FRESNO
SUBJECT: Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations
and Student Course Evaluations (RE: APM 322)
I have received and reviewed your departmental documents, and they are
tentatively approved for implementation during the remainder of AY11-12.
I am, however, concerned about your department's use of a relatively low
statistical standard for student ratings—a standard that may render data used to
support AY12-13 RTP recommendations less than persuasive. Thus, it is my
hope that, once AY11-12 data becomes widely available, you may wish to adjust
the departmental standard upward to a more meaningful measure of relative
teaching performance.
In the meantime, I want to reiterate my commitment to our Academic Senate's
stated beliefs that student feedback is best viewed from a multi-year perspective,
and considered within the larger context of all evidence presented in support of a
colleague's teaching effectiveness.
WAC:kyp
cc:
Luz Gonzalez, Dean, College of Social Sciences
Ted Wendt, AVP for Academic Personnel
Office of the Provost
and Vice President
for Academic Affairs
Harold H. link
Administrative Center
Henry Madden library
5200 N. Barton Ave. 1WS ML54
Fresno, CA 93740-8014
559.278.2636
Fax 559.278.7987
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
September 26, 2011
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
APM 322 is the official policy on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness. This Departmental policy is
designed to further define requirements at the Departmental level as specified in APM 322.
STUDENT RATINGS OF INSTRUCTION
While the IDEA Short Form will be the standard paper instrument for the campus, faculty may elect to use
either the Diagnostic Form or Online version.
Student ratings of instruction shall be assessed to identify patterns and trends of teaching performance and
effectiveness. It is expected that the faculty member shall meet or exceed the department standard 3.0 out of
5.0 using adjusted or unadjusted scores, whichever are higher, on a regular basis; however, it is more
important to evaluate on the basis of multi-year trends rather than focusing on a single course or narrow time
frame.
Frequency
a. For part-time and full-time temporary faculty, each faculty member shall have all sections rated by
students every semester.
b. For probationary faculty, each faculty member should have a minimum of two sections rated (to
include as many different courses as possible) every semester.
c. For tenured faculty, each faculty shall have a minimum of two sections rated by students annually.
PEER EVALUATIONS
1. Frequency
a. For part-time temporary faculty, the first time a course is taught by the instructor and, thereafter,
at least one section every other year of employment regardless of a break in service.
b. For full-time temporary faculty, two sections each semester for the first year and two sections
each academic year thereafter.
c. For probationary faculty, two sections (to include as many different courses as possible) every
semester.
d. For tenured faculty, one section each academic year on a rotating basis such that during a five year
period the maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
2. Faculty will use the attached Departmentally approved form to evaluate Course Content, Instructional
Design, Instructional Delivery and Assessment methods.
OVERALL
The Department will follow the guidelines in APM 325, APM 327 and APM 328 when electing committees
selected to prepare the overall evaluation of teaching.
APPROVAL PROCESS
Departmental policies will be submitted to the appropriate School/College Dean and to the Provost for
review and approval.
Last Updated: September 26, 2011
APM 322b
September 26, 2011
PEER EVALUATION FORM
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
Professor Evaluated:
Rank:
Term/Year:
Course:
Date of Classroom Visitation:
Name of Evaluator:
Signature:
Category:
A. Course Content. The assessment of course content shall include a review of the currency of the
content of a course, the appropriateness of the level of the content of a course, and the
appropriateness of the sequencing of the content to best achieve the learning objectives for the
course.
B. Instructional Design. The assessment of the instructional design of the course shall include a
review of learning objectives, syllabi, instructional support materials, organization of lectures,
and the use of technology appropriate to the class.
C. Instructional Delivery. The assessment of delivery shall include a review of oral presentation
skills, written communication skills, skills using various forms of informational technology, and
the ability to create an overall environment conducive to student learning.
D. Assessment Methods. The evaluation of assessment methods shall consist of a review of the
tools, procedures, and strategies used for measuring student learning, and providing timely and
meaningful feedback to students.
OVERALL RANKING
Inadequate
Substantial Improvement
Needed
Meets Departmental
Expectations
Exceeds Departmental
Standards
• MEMORANDUM
. CALIFORNIA
STATE
UNIVERSITY,
FRESNO
DATE:
November 21, 2011
TO:
Faculty
Department of Finance and Business Law
MS PB 7
FROM:
(1
7,
William A. Covino
L.9
e.,
Provost and Vice resid t for Academic Affairs
SUBJECT: Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations
and Student Course Evaluations (RE: APM 322)
I have received and reviewed your departmental documents, and they are
approved for implementation during the remainder of AY11-12.
I fully understand that the statistical standard chosen for student ratings is
provisional, and may require further adjustment once we have obtained a
sufficient amount of comparison data. However, the mean you have selected
seems a reasonable initial benchmark.
I also want to reiterate my commitment to our Academic Senate's stated
•
beliefs that student feedback is best viewed from a multi-year perspective, and
considered within the larger context of all evidence presented in support of a
colleague's teaching effectiveness.
WAC:kyp
cc: Robert Harper, Dean, Craig School of Business
Ted Wendt, AVP for Academic Personnel
Office of the Provost
and Vice President
for Academic Affairs
Harold H. Haak
Administrative Center
Henry Madden Library
5200 N. Barton Ave. WS ML54
Fresno, CA 93740-8014
559.278.2636
Fax 559.278.7987
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND BUSINESS LAW
POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
APM 322 is the official policy on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness. This Departmental policy is
designed to further define requirements at the Departmental level as specified in APM 322.
STUDENT RATINGS OF INSTRUCTION
I. Frequency
a. For part-time temporary faculty, the first time a course is taught by the instructor, all sections
for first year of employment, and, thereafter, at least one section every year of employment
regardless of a break in service. Each faculty member shall have a minimum of two sections rated
by students annually.
b. For full-time temporary faculty, two sections each semester for the first year and two
sections each academic year thereafter.
c. For probationary faculty, one section of each course every semester.
d. For Associate Professor, two classes every semester, or by request, all classes may be
evaluated.
e. For Full Professor, one class every semester or by request, all classes may be evaluated.
2. While the IDEA Short Form will be the standard paper instrument for the campus, faculty may elect to
use either the Diagnostic Form or Online version.
3. Student ratings of instruction shall be assessed to identify patterns and trends of teaching performance
and effectiveness. It is expected that the faculty member shall meet or exceed the department standard
3.75 out of 5.0 using adjusted or unadjusted scores, whichever are higher, on a regular basis; however, it
is more important to evaluate on the basis of multi-year trends rather than focusing on a single course or
narrow time frame.
PEER EVALUATIONS
1. Frequency
a. For part-time temporary faculty, the first time a course is taught by the instructor, all sections
for first year of employment, and, thereafter, at least one section every other year of
employment regardless of a break in service.
b. For full-time temporary faculty, two sections each semester for the first year and two
sections each academic year thereafter.
c. For probationary faculty, one section of each course every semester with a minimum of two
sections every semester.
d. For tenured faculty, one section each academic year on a rotating basis such that during a five
year period the maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
2. Faculty will use the attached Departmentally approved form to evaluate Course Content, Instructional
Design, Instructional Delivery and Assessment methods.
OVERALL
The Department will follow the guidelines in APM 325, APM 327 and APM 328 when electing
committees selected to prepare the overall evaluation of teaching.
APPROVAL PROCESS
Departmental policies will be submitted to the appropriate School/College Dean and to the Provost for
review and approval.
Last Updated: September 21, 2011
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND BUSINESS LAW
REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETING THE FACULTY INFORMATION FORM
FOR IDEA CENTER STUDENT EVALUATIONS
OBJECTIVES SECTION:
In completing the Faculty Information Form, you will designate the relevance of 12 course student
learning objectives for the course being evaluated, rating each objective as Essential (E), Important (I) or
of Minor or No Importance (M):
Gaining factual knowledge (terminology, classifications, methods, trends)
Learning fundamental principles, generalizations, or theories
Learning to apply course material (to improve thinking, problem solving, and decisions)
Developing specific skills, competencies, and points of view needed by professionals in the field
most closely related to this course
5. Acquiring skills in working with others as a member of a team
6. Developing creative capacities (writing, inventing, designing, performing in art, music, drama,
etc.)
7. Gaining a broader understanding and appreciations of intellectual/cultural activity (music,
science, literature, etc.)
8. Developing skill in expressing oneself orally and in writing
9. Learning how to find and use resources for answering questions or solving problems
10. Developing a clearer understanding of, and commitment to, personal values
11. Learning to analyze and critically evaluate ideas, arguments, and points of view
12. Acquiring an interest in learning more by asking questions and seeking answers
1.
2.
3.
4.
Based on the course being evaluated, the Department will require some of the above objectives to be
marked Essential (E) and some must be marked Essential (E) or Important (I). You should have a total of
3-5 objectives marked E or I, with the remaining 7-9 objectives marked as being of Minor or No
Importance (M). No one should have fewer than 3 objectives marked E or I, or more than 5 objectives
marked E or I.
Departmental requirements by type of course:
BA 18: Objectives 1, 3, 8, and 11 must be marked E.
BA 105W: Objectives 4 and 8 must be marked E and Objective 3 must be marked I.
Fin 120: Objectives 1 and 2 must be marked E and Objective 3 must be marked I.
DISCIPLINE CODE:
For all Business Law courses, should use Discipline Code 5201 — Business — General
For BA105W courses, should use Discipline Code 5205— Business Communication
For all FIN courses, should use Discipline Code 5208 — Business - Finance
For all International Business Option courses, use Discipline Code 5211 — International Business
For all Real Estate Option courses, should use Discipline Code 5215 — Real Estate
Last Updated: September 21, 2011
California State University, Fresno
UNIVERSITY-WIDE PEER EVALUATION FORM
Department of Finance and Business Law
Professor Evaluated:
Rank:
Term/Year:
Course:
Date of Classroom Visitation:
Name of Evaluator
Signature:
Ratings Scale: 5 = superior I 4 = above average I 3 = average I 2 = below average I 1 = weak
Category
A. Course Content. The assessment of course content shall include a review of the
currency of the content of a course, the appropriateness of the level of the content of a
course, and the appropriateness of the sequencing of the content to best achieve the
learning objectives for the course.
Rating (1-5
:&
COMMENTS:
B. Instructional Design. The assessment of the instructional design of the course shall
include a review of learning objectives, syllabi, instructional support materials,
organization of lectures, and the use of technology appropriate to the class.
COMMENTS:
k, ,
-
C. Instructional Delivery. The assessment of delivery shall include a review of oral
presentation skills, written communication skills, skills using various forms of informational
technology, and the ability to create an overall environment conducive to student learning.
COMMENTS:
D. Assessment Methods. The evaluation of assessment methods shall consist of a
review of the tools, procedures, and strategies used for measuring student learning, and
providing timely and meaningful feedback to students.
COMMENTS:
Additional comments may be included on the reverse side of this form.
Last Updated: September 21, 2011
APM322c
'MEMORANDUM
CALIFORNIA
DATE:
November 21, 2011
TO:
Faculty
Department of Information Systems & Decision Sciences
MIS PB 7
FROM:
61/
William A. Covino
Provost and Vice resident for Academic Affairs
STATE
UNIVERSITY,
FRESNO
M
SUBJECT: Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations
and Student Course Evaluations (RE: MM 322)
I have received and reviewed your departmental documents, and they are
tentatively approved for implementation during the remainder of AY11-12.
I am, however, concerned about your department's use of a relatively low
statistical standard for student ratings—a standard that may render data used to
support AY12-13 RIP recommendations less than persuasive. Thus, it is my
hope that, once AY11-12 data becomes widely available, you may wish to adjust
the departmental standard upward to a more meaningful measure of relative
teaching performance.
In the meantime, I want to reiterate my commitment to our Academic Senate's
stated beliefs that student feedback is best viewed from a multi-year perspective,
and considered within the larger context of all evidence presented in support of a
colleague's teaching effectiveness.
WAC:kyp
cc:
Robert Harper, Dean, Craig School of Business
Ted Wendt, AVP for Academic Personnel
Office of the Provost
and Vice President
for Academic Affairs
Harold H. Hoak
Administrative Center
Henry Madden Library
5200 N. Barton Ave. M/S ML54
Fresno, CA 93740-8014
559.278.2636
Fax 559.278.7987
THE CAI1FORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND DECISION SCIENCES
POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
APM 322 is the official policy on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness. This Departmental policy is
designed to further define requirements at the Departmental level as specified in APM 322.
STUDENT RATINGS OF INSTRUCTION
Each faculty member shall have a minimum of two sections rated by students annually.
While the IDEA Short Form will be the standard paper instrument for the campus, faculty may elect to
use either the Diagnostic Form or Online version when available.
Faculty will observe current Departmental requirements for rating the relevance of IDEA learning
objectives and discipline coding (as described on the attached statement.)
Student ratings of instruction shall be assessed to identify patterns and trends of teaching performance and
effectiveness. It is expected that the faculty member shall meet or exceed the department standard [3.0 out
of 5.0] using adjusted or unadjusted scores, whichever are higher, on a regular basis; however, it is more
important to evaluate on the basis of multi-year trends rather than focusing on a single course or narrow
time frame.
PEER EVALUATIONS
1. Frequency
a. For part-time temporary faculty, the first time a course is taught by the instructor and,
thereafter, at least one section every other year of employment regardless of a break in service.
b. For full-time temporary faculty, two sections each semester for the first year and two sections
each academic year thereafter.
c. For probationary faculty, two sections (to include as many different courses as possible) every
semester.
d. For tenured faculty, one section each academic year on a rotating basis such that during a five
year period the maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
2. Faculty will use the attached Departmental-approved form to evaluate Course Content, Instructional
Design, Instructional Delivery and Assessment methods.
OVERALL
The Department will follow the guidelines in APM 325, APM 327 and APM 328 when electing
committees selected to prepare the overall evaluation of teaching.
APPROVAL PROCESS
Departmental policies will be submitted to the appropriate School/College Dean and to the Provost for
review and approval.
Last Updated: 9/21/2011
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND DECISION SCIENCES
REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETING THE FACULTY INFORMATION FORM
FOR IDEA CENTER STUDENT EVALUATIONS
OBJECTIVES SECTION:
In completing the Faculty Information Form, you will designate the relevance of 12 course student
learning objectives for the course being evaluated, rating each objective as Essential (E), Important (I) or
of Minor or No Importance (M):
Gaining factual knowledge (terminology, classifications, methods, trends)
Learning fundamental principles, generalizations, or theories
Learning to apply course material (to improve thinking, problem solving, and decisions)
Developing specific skills, competencies, and points of view needed by professionals in the field
most closely related to this course
5. Acquiring skills in working with others as a member of a team
6. Developing creative capacities (writing, inventing, designing, performing in art, music, drama,
etc.)
7. Gaining a broader understanding and appreciations of intellectual/cultural activity (music,
science, literature, etc.)
8. Developing skill in expressing oneself orally and in writing
9. Learning how to find and use resources for answering questions or solving problems
10. Developing a clearer understanding of, and commitment to, personal values
11. Learning to analyze and critically evaluate ideas, arguments, and points of view
12. Acquiring an interest in learning more by asking questions and seeking answers
1.
2.
3.
4.
Based on the course being evaluated, the Department will require some of the above objectives to be
marked Essential (E) and some must be marked Essential (E) or Important (I). You should have a total of
3-5 objectives marked E or I, with the remaining 7-9 objectives marked as being of Minor or No
Importance (M). No one should have fewer than 3 objectives marked E or I, or more than 5 objectives
marked E or I.
Departmental requirements by type of course:
DS 71, 73, and 123: Objectives 1 and 3 must be marked E.
IS 52: Objectives 1 and 9 must be marked E, Objective 2 must be marked E or I.
IS 130: Objectives 1 and 2 must be marked E, Objective 4 must be marked E or I.
All CIS Option classes, including IS 51: Objectives 3 and 4 must be marked E.
DISCIPLINE CODE:
For all DS courses, should use Discipline Code 5213 — Business Quantitative Methods & Management
Science
For all IS/CIS courses, use Discipline Code 5212 — Business Information & Data Processing Services
Last Updated: 9/21/2011
California State University, Fresno
UNIVERSITY-WIDE PEER EVALUATION FORM
Department of Information Systems and Decision Sciences
Professor Evaluated:
Rank:
Term/Year:
Course:
Date of Classroom Visitation:
Name of Evaluator
Signature:
Ratings Scale: 5 = superior I 4 = above average I 3 = average I 2 = below average I 1 = weak
Category
A. Course Content. The assessment of course content shall include a review of the
currency of the content of a course, the appropriateness of the level of the content of a
course, and the appropriateness of the sequencing of the content to best achieve the
learning objectives for the course.
Rating (1-5
COMMENTS:
B. Instructional Design. The assessment of the instructional design of the course shall
include a review of learning objectives, syllabi, instructional support materials,
organization of lectures, and the use of technology appropriate to the class.
COMMENTS:
C. Instructional Delivery. The assessment of delivery shall include a review of oral
presentation skills, written communication skills, skills using various forms of informational
technology, and the ability to create an overall environment conducive to student learning.
COMMENTS:
D. Assessment Methods. The evaluation of assessment methods shall consist of a
review of the tools, procedures, and strategies used for measuring student learning, and
providing timely and meaningful feedback to students.
COMMENTS:
Additional comments may be included on the reverse side of this form.
Last Updated: 9/21/2011
APM322c
*MEMORANDUM
CALIFORN/A
DATE:
November 21, 2011
TO:
Faculty
Department of Management
MS PB 7
FROM:
William A. Covin
Provost and Vice Pr Si • ent for Academic Affairs
STATE
UNIVERSITY,
FRESNO
zazd
SUBJECT: Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations
and Student Course Evaluations (RE: APM 322)
I have received and reviewed your departmental documents, and they are
approved for implementation during the remainder of AY11-12.
I fully understand that the statistical standard chosen for student ratings is
provisional, and may require further adjustment once we have obtained a
sufficient amount of comparison data. However, the mean you have selected
seems a reasonable initial benchmark.
I also want to reiterate my commitment to our Academic Senate's stated
beliefs that student feedback is best viewed from a multi-year perspective, and
considered within the larger context of all evidence presented in support of a
colleague's teaching effectiveness.
WAC:kyp
cc: Robert Harper, Dean, Craig School of Business
. Ted Wendt, AVP for Academic Personnel
Office of the Provost
and Vice President
for Academic Affairs
Harold H. Haak
Administrative Center
Henry Madden Library
5200 N. Barton Ave. WS ML54
Fresno, CA 93740-8014
559.278.2636
Fax 559.278.7987
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT
POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
APM 322 is the official policy on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness. This Departmental policy is
designed to further define requirements at the Departmental level as specified in APM 322.
STUDENT RATINGS OF INSTRUCTION
Each faculty member shall have all sections of all courses rated by students annually.
While the IDEA Short Form will be the standard paper instrument for the campus, faculty may elect to
use either the Diagnostic Form or Online version. The Department recommends faculty members use the
Diagnostic Form at least one time per year, once it becomes available.
Student ratings of instruction shall be assessed to identify patterns and trends of teaching performance and
effectiveness. It is expected that the faculty member shall meet or exceed the department standard of an
average score, across all classes, of 3.5 for the A (progress on relevant objectives) and B (excellent
teacher) components out of 5.0. This average can be based on adjusted or unadjusted scores, whichever
are higher. However, it is more important to evaluate on the basis of multi-year trends rather than
focusing on a single course or narrow time frame.
PEER EVALUATIONS
1. Frequency
a. For part-time temporary faculty, the first time a course is taught by the instructor and,
thereafter, at least one evaluation every other year of employment, regardless of a break in
service.
b. For full-time temporary faculty, two reviews each semester for the first year and at least two
evaluations each academic year thereafter.
c. For probationary faculty, two evaluations (to include as many different courses as possible)
every semester.
d. For tenured faculty, one evaluation each academic year on a rotating basis such that during a
five year period the maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
2. Faculty will use the attached Departmentally approved form to evaluate Course Content, Instructional
Design, Instructional Delivery and Assessment methods.
OVERALL
The Department will follow the guidelines in APM 325, APM 327 and APM 328 when electing
committees selected to prepare the overall evaluation of teaching.
APPROVAL PROCESS
Departmental policies will be submitted to the appropriate School/College Dean and to the Provost for
review and approval.
Last Updated: September 30, 2011
APM 322b
California State University, Fresno
PEER EVALUATION FORM
Craig School of Business
Management Department
Professor Evaluated:
Term/Year:
Course:
Rank:
Date of Meeting:
Name of Evaluator:
Signature:
PROCESS
A. In preparation for this evaluation, the faculty member should provide the evaluator with the following
information. The evaluator may request additional material, depending on the nature of the course.
1) Course syllabus that includes:
• course objectives
• course content and organization
• identification of reading material and assignments
• methods of appraising student achievement
2) Copies of examinations, assignments, and other graded materials and a description of which objective(s) are
met. The grading standards should be included with these materials.
3) If applicable, samples of graded student projects (high, average, and low) and exams (high, medium, and low).
The identity of the students should be removed and information about when the feedback was provided to
students should be included.
4) Samples of powerpoints, lecture materials, in-class exercises, Blackboard materials (or access to it), etc. that
allow the evaluator to observe what is presented in the classroom.
5) Distribution of current grades in the course and final grades from the previous semester (if instructor taught
this course).
After reviewing the materials and before completing this form, the faculty being evaluated and the
evaluator(s) should arrange a meeting (ideally face-to-face) where the faculty being evaluated would provide
an overview of his or her approach to teaching this course, particularly with respect to in-class activities that
are not captured in the written materials This would also be when the evaluator(s) would ask clarification and
follow-up questions about the materials provided in step A.
B.
CATEGORY
• Course Content
(defined by APM 322). The assessment of course content shall include a review
of the currency of the content of a course, the appropriateness of the level of the content of a course, and the
appropriateness of the sequencing of the content to best achieve the learning objectives for the course.
•
Questions that might be addressed under this category include: Are the reading materials and
assignments well-chosen, at an appropriate level, balanced, and consistent with course objectives? Are
the non-reading assignments/projects relevant to course objectives, compelling, and reasonable in
terms of required work? Is the course content sequenced appropriately to enhance student learning?
COMMENTS:
• Instructional Design (defined in APM 322). The assessment of the instructional design of the
course shall include a review of the learning objectives, syllabi, instructional support materials, organization
of lectures, and the use of technology appropriate to the class.
•
Questions that might be addressed include: Are the objectives clearly expressed? Are the objectives
appropriate for this class? Are the topics presented in a logical and integrative manner? If used, are the
in-class exercises or other support materials supportive of student learning? Is the overall design of the
class supportive of student learning? If used, does the information technology support student learning?
COMMENTS:
• Instructional Delivery (defined in APM 322). The assessment of delivery shall include a
review of oral presentation skills, written communication skills, skills using various forms of informational
technology, and the ability to create an overall environment conducive to student learning.
•
Questions that might be addressed include: are the methods used to deliver course content (oral
presentation, written communication, other media) appropriate with the topic and likely to stimulate or
maintain student interest? Are the written instructions and assignments clear and appropriate for the
course level? Are appropriate steps taken to create an environment conducive to student learning?
COMMENTS:
• Assessment Methods (defined in APM 322). The evaluation of assessment methods shall
consist of a review of tools, procedures, and strategies used for measuring student learning, and providing
timely and meaningful feedback to students.
Questions that might be addressed include: Are the tools, procedures, and strategies used for
measuring student learning consistent with the course objectives? Do students have sufficient
opportunity to demonstrate their achievement of course objectives? Are alternative assessment
methods employed to supplement exams? Do assessment procedures over-stress achievements which
are easiest to appraise and under-stress those which are most difficult to appraise? Is the feedback (oral
or written) provided to students timely, constructive, meaningful, and appropriate given the course
nature, course format, and teaching method employed?
•
COMMENTS:
*MEMORANDUM
CALIFORNIA
DATE:
November 21, 2011
TO:
Faculty
Department of Marketing and Logistics
MS PB 7
FROM:
William A. Covi
Provost and Vice Pfe1 nt for Academic Affairs
STATE
UNIVERSITY,
FRESNO
SUBJECT: Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations
and Student Course Evaluations (RE: APM 322)
I have received and reviewed your departmental documents, and they are
approved for implementation during the remainder of AY11-12.
I fully understand that the statistical standard chosen for student ratings is
provisional, and may require further adjustment once we have obtained a
sufficient amount of comparison data. However, the mean you have selected
seems a reasonable initial benchmark.
I also want to reiterate my commitment to our Academic Senate's stated
beliefs that student feedback is best viewed from a multi-year perspective, and
considered within the larger context of all evidence presented in support of a
colleague's teaching effectiveness.
WAC:kyp
cc: Robert Harper, Dean, Craig School of Business
Ted Wendt, AVP for Academic Personnel
Office of the Provost
and Vice President
for Academic Affairs
Harold H. Haak
Administrative Center
dairy Madden Library
5200 N. Barton Ave. M/S ML54
Fresno, CA 93740-8014
559.278.2636
Fax 559.278.7987
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING AND LOGISTICS
POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
APM 322 is the official policy on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness. This Departmental policy is
designed to further define requirements at the Departmental level as specified in APM 322.
STUDENT RATINGS OF INSTRUCTION
Each faculty member shall have a minimum of two sections rated by students annually, on rotating basis.
While the IDEA Short Form will be the standard paper instrument for the campus, faculty may elect to
use either the Diagnostic Form or Online version when available.
Faculty will observe current Departmental requirements for rating the relevance of IDEA learning
objectives and discipline coding (as described on page 2).
Student ratings of instruction shall be assessed to identify patterns and trends of teaching performance and
effectiveness. It is expected that the faculty member shall meet or exceed the department standard 3.75
out of 5.0 using adjusted or unadjusted scores, whichever are higher, on a regular basis; however, it is
more important to evaluate on the basis of multi-year trends rather than focusing on a single course or
narrow time frame.
PEER EVALUATIONS
1. Frequency
a. For part-time temporary faculty, the first time a course is taught by the instructor and,
thereafter, at least one section every semester on a rotating basis, regardless of a break in service.
b. For full-time temporary faculty, two sections each semester for the first year and two sections
each academic year thereafter, on a rotating basis.
c. For probationary faculty, two sections (to include as many different courses as possible) every
semester.
d. For tenured faculty, one section each academic year, on a rotating basis such that during a five
year period the maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
2. Faculty will use the attached departmentally approved form to evaluate Course Content, Instructional
Design, Instructional Delivery and Assessment methods.
OVERALL
The Department will follow the guidelines in APM 325, APM 327 and APM 328 when electing
committees selected to prepare the overall evaluation of teaching.
APPROVAL PROCESS
Departmental policies will be submitted to the appropriate School/College Dean and to the Provost for
review and approval.
Last Updated: 10/3/2011
1
DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING AND LOGISTICS
REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETING THE FACULTY INFORMATION FORM
FOR IDEA CENTER STUDENT EVALUATIONS
OBJECTIVES SECTION:
In completing the Faculty Information Form, you will designate the relevance of 12 course student
learning objectives for the course being evaluated, rating each objective as Essential (E), Important (I) or
of Minor or No Importance (M):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Gaining factual knowledge (terminology, classifications, methods, trends)
Learning fundamental principles, generalizations, or theories
Learning to apply course material (to improve thinking, problem solving, and decisions)
Developing specific skills, competencies, and points of view needed by professionals in the field
most closely related to this course
Acquiring skills in working with others as a member of a team
Developing creative capacities (writing, inventing, designing, performing in art, music, drama,
etc.)
Gaining a broader understanding and appreciations of intellectual/cultural activity (music,
science, literature, etc.)
Developing skill in expressing oneself orally and in writing
Learning how to find and use resources for answering questions or solving problems
Developing a clearer understanding of, and commitment to, personal values
Learning to analyze and critically evaluate ideas, arguments, and points of view
Acquiring an interest in learning more by asking questions and seeking answers
For the following courses, the Department will require some of the above objectives to be marked
Essential (E), with the remaining objectives marked as being of Important (I) or of Minor or No
Importance (M): No one should have fewer than 3 objectives marked E, and no one should have more
than 5 objectives marked.
Departmental requirements by type of course:
•
•
•
•
•
•
MKTG-100s: Objectives 1, 2, and 5 must be marked E.
MKTG-101: Objectives: 1,3, and 4 must be marked E
MKTG-103: Objectives: 4,5, and 8 must be marked E
MKTG-110: Objectives: 2,3, and 4 must be marked E
MKTG-132: Objectives: 1,2, and 3 must be marked E
MKTG-188: Objectives: 2,3, and 5 must be marked E,
•
For other elective courses, the Department will require that no one should have fewer than 3
objectives marked E, and no one should have more than 5 objectives marked.
DISCIPLINE CODE:
For all courses, should use Discipline Code: 5214 — Business, Marketing
Last Updated: 10/3/2011
2
California State University, Fresno
UNIVERSITY-WIDE PEER EVALUATION FORM
Department of Marketing and Logistics
Category
A. Course Content. The assessment of course content shall include a review of the
currency of the content of a course, the appropriateness of the level of the content of a
course, and the appropriateness of the sequencing of the content to best achieve the
learning objectives for the course.
Rating (1-5
COMMENTS:
B. Instructional Design. The assessment of the instructional design of the course shall
include a review of learning objectives, syllabi, instructional support materials,
organization of lectures, and the use of technology appropriate to the class.
.
I
.
COMMENTS:
C. Instructional Delivery. The assessment of delivery shall include a review of oral
presentation skills, written communication skills, skills using various forms of informational
technology, and the ability to create an overall environment conducive to student learning.
-
COMMENTS:
D. Assessment Methods. The evaluation of assessment methods shall consist of a
review of the tools, procedures, and strategies used for measuring student learning, and
providing timely and meaningful feedback to students.
COMMENTS:
Professor Evaluated:
Rank:
Term/Year:
Course:
Date of Classroom Visitation:
Name of Evaluator
Signature:
Ratings Scale: 5 = superior I 4 = above average I 3 = average I 2 = below average I 1 = weak
Additional comments from the current Class Room Visitation Evaluation Sheet (see next page)
Will be included on the reverse side of UNIVERSITY-WIDE PEER EVALUATION FORM
Last Updated: 10/3/2011
3
Current Class Room Visitation Evaluation Sheet
DID EVALUATED INSTRUCTOR KNOW IN ADVANCE EVALUATION WAS TO BE THIS HOUR? YES NO
INSTRUCTOR'S PREPARATION AND/OR ORGANIZATION:
ABILITY TO STIMULATE STUDENTS (INCLUDING VOCAL CHARACTERISTICS AND MANNERISMS):
BALANCE BETWEEN HIGH ACADEMIC LEVEL AND NOT TALKING OVER STUDENTS' HEADS:
CONSIDERATION FOR STUDENTS (INCLUDING OPEN-MINDEDNESS AND RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS):
OVERALL EVALUATION OF CONDUCTING CLASS AND/OR ARRANGING FOR STUDENT PARTICIPATION:
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
ADDENDUM TO CLASSROOM EVALUATION FORM
Describe the individual's ability to achieve a high standard of teaching effectiveness in each of
the following areas:
A. COURSE SYLLABUS:
B. COURSE REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS PAPERS, PROJECTS, AND HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS:
C. COURSE EXAMINATIONS:
D. GRADING POLICY AND GRADES ASSIGNED:
4